From: Craig Erb <[email protected]>
>To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
>Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2014 5:16 PM
>Subject: Re: [MD] Sociability Re-examined
>
>[Craig, previously]
>> What we would call 'braves' go on what we would call a 'hunt'. After the
>> hunt each brave usually brings his or her gain back to what we
>> would call the 'chief', who distributes it amongst the entire (what we would
>> call) 'tribe'. If a brave fails to deliver the gain and the chief finds >
>> out, there is a conflict between the brave and the chief (and perhaps with
>> the rest of the tribe). The brave can decide to risk keeping his
>> gain or give it up. At this point IMHO there is no right or wrong in the
>> matter; it is a matter of biology. What would need to be different for >
>> this to be a third level situation?
>
>
>[JC]
>> Interesting thought experiment but unfortunately it's too hypothetical
>> to have any explanatory value.
>
>Its point is not "explanatory value", but to locate the divide between the 2nd
>& 3rd levels. When the pack just hunts, it is 2nd level. When everyone
>promises to share the gain, it is definitely 3rd level. Somewhere in between
>is the divide.
>
>[JC]
>> Your "individual" brave doesn't think
>> like that...He'll cheat and steal for the good of the tribe, but
>> he identifies too strongly WITH his tribe, to individuate in the way
>> you describe.
>
>No, this is YOUR "individual" brave. My example was different. You have
>introduced a competing tribe which can be cheated or stolen from, and so you
>have complicated the example I was trying to keep simple.
>
>Craig
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
